INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY
INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY PHIL 1000
Popular in Course
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 21 page Class Notes was uploaded by Breanna Sipes Sr. on Saturday September 12, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 1000 at University of Georgia taught by Sherman in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 45 views. For similar materials see /class/202545/phil-1000-university-of-georgia in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Georgia.
Reviews for INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 09/12/15
Philosophy 1000 19082009 100800 81909 The unexamined life is not worth living because you don t see all the possibilities of life the understanding of life is the understanding of yourself some people would rather live by the phrase ignorance is bliss How do you support your arguments use examples from the text book everyday observations authority just use solid evidence don t rely on instincts TTTTTTTT Metaphysics regarding the nature of ultimate reality Epistemology regarding the nature of knowledge and justification Fallacies bad argument forms bad reasonings Ad Hominem attacks the person rather than the argument lt Ex Don t believe Adams argument about gun control because hes a liberal Appeal to inappropriate authority appeals to inappropriate authority rather than good reasoning lt Ex Bible has some authority but within certain limits its not universally appealing lt Begging the question arguing in a circle using the conclusion as a premise to prove the same conclusion lt Ex Only good people go to heaven because there are only good people in heaven lt Argument from ignorance when one argues that since the opposition has not proved a proposition false that one is justified in believing it to be true TTTTTT Ex ND nDdey has Ever pmved that aspertam S dangErDuS then M S ndt dandemds at 5 ratse dueynrna when seyerat atternattyes are reduced td twd Ex Vnu re etther wtth ds m ydd39re wtth the tendnsts SD ydd haye td be wtth ds Shpp2ry S Dpe when the ednddstdn rests an aheded chem rEaEUDn and there 5 ndt sdmdent reasun td thmk the chem rEaEUDn WDu d DEEur Straw Man when dne dtstdrts an dppdnents argumen purpDSE dtyndre 255W attackmg CDmpDSWDn tatse arence nmn parts td a Whme Ex Every ptayer an the tddthah team S dddd SD the team must be a dud unednststeney cuntradmtnry premtses yame Bf phddsdphy Ezlug Nathan Teachers Asststant F ce Peabndy 125 HDurS Tuesday 9 an AM 11 an AM 0 Wednesday 1 3D AM 12 nu PM Ema wdddnadda Edu In discussiuns bring ateast 1 questiun Essays are graded dn Outhmng what the phddsdpher satd ttst the arguments edndsety and thdmudhw then remterpret the argument and then 9W2 yDur dwn mterpretatmn put m yDur dwn Wards Breakout 939 cu 39 n 1 what dd ydd thmk the Va uE DprHDSDpHy 57 PHHDSDDHV dembd bew H1255 abd bEEDmmg mare aware wb be Warm arbdbd yDu E i G r Cbbwbee bber pEDp E ba cbd ewss SD yDu need a arddrbem b rd e b berb LDg Ea bass dr yDur bwb ab abd ebrbe db wb a deeper undarstandmg Make be skeptms db away m cumes for growing God s exlslence Sdebee We eabbb Ubserve cbd dreew see bdeb ee we have b ka a dr ebbeebs abd abawze berb and try b pruve cbd ewss bdreeuy Anu jar DJ based db brermses ba de berstMeanbb fmm EXDEHEHEE bbbb based db brermses ba can be knDWn b be rde depEndEnUy DfEXpEHEnEE CDSND DQHZE Argument apDSIEHDH bedbs wb be brermse ba b a b bf be dbwerse s FESpDnSHZI E br s ewsebee type bfarddrb eb ba Aqumas dwes abbsebbr bedms wb be brermse ba be Warm exbbs arbs abd bdrbbses abd beb arddes b be mbddsmb ba sbrbe bebdeb bemd mds be FESpDnSHZI E br brbwdbd base a ms Pa ey s argument OHID DQHZE Argument abrbb arddes rum be H125 bfcbd b GDd39S necessary ewsebee Ans m s arddrbem prermse s e ebbeeb bfcbd and be ebbemsmb s be reax bebd bf and ba mmu ar Aquinass dsbd absbebab physms OHW FESpDnSHZI E br be rrs abd SEEDnd Way rst Way argument Trcrh rhctTch chcrh ctTch aha chahgey pracess FT crh gcThg crh patermahty ta actuahty 1 1t Ts certa tTh h tha the physTcaT warm scrhe thThgs are Th rhctTch 2 MctTch Ts the b ngmg ctscrhethThg crh pctehtTaTTty ta actuahty 3 NathTh Trcrh pctehtTaTTty ta actuahty 2x521th g c e bmught scrhethThg Th a state Ufatuahty 4 1t Ts TrhpcssThTe that the sarhe thThg cah bath be Th actuahty aha patermahty Th the sarhe respect 5 tT therefnre TrhpcssThTe that scrhethThg can he hath muver and Th Dved 5 Theretcre Whatever Ts waved Ts waved by arTcther 7 Ifthat thch dues the mDVmg Ts aTsc waved theh Tt rhust be u at ta Th hTty because then there wcum be he rst rhcver aha Dunsequen y ha cther mavers because they are v Th v a chTyT as much st 2y are waved b t ust be r er Th 1 ether and that rst rhcver Ts Gad There cahhc be ah Th hTte serTes ctrhctTch There ta be ah uanVEd ver ta start Everytthg T uses the physms cThTs tTrhe h he s Hard ta pruve wheret Thgs carhe Trcrh SEEDnd Way argument Trcrh et cTeht causatTch cause sgt e ect 1 In the rhaterTaT warm there Ts et cTeht causatTch seTT There carTrTct be an TrT rTTte serTes ufcauses c T ere Tsa te Tarrahgerheht Bf causes cause Ts aTways hetcre the e ect Th tTrhe e a Ifwe r Nave cause the e ect Ts rerhc ved u c quotwe rerh cue the rst dause TrT a serTes there WTH rTct be hTte serTes there wcum be he rst cause thch wcum rheah there are he e ects HEW thch Ts Tse o 2 Cchctustch there rhust be a rst cause and that cause ts Gad s uhuerstahuthg what the th htte sertes rheah s Saymg that Gad ts the rst cause GudaH knDng aH pcwertut 5 gene hecessary start wtth prerhtses that are yery thd ttwe haye scrheththg that Extsts there has ta be a cause the uhtyerse Extsts sc there has ta be a cause Maybe the cause DHHE uhtyerse was partty bad sc where ate the eytt ccrhe frum7 Reasun ta prcye why Aqumas39 argument that Gad dues Extst ts wrchg Fur Gad ta be perfect means he must Extst a ti ts actuattty Dues Gad stttt EMSU Th ect ts stttt akmg ptace eyeh tfthe cause ts game a Examp e tarhtty ttrhe he Ifynu waht ta argue fur Aqumas There cant be ah th htte serte s Ifynu Hmk that rst mcyer ts the same as Gad theh Exp am bath thhem haw du ycu Hmk Aqumas wcutu rESpDnd ta scrhe nfnur Ermque Ifhts premtses are ccrrect he draws the rtght cchctustch sc he prayes that there ts a rst mcyer and then he tahets that rst mcyer a ti hcweyer he ts trythg ta prcye that Gad ts crh htsctehce crh htpreseht crhhtpcteht crhhtheheycteht aha uhchahgthg TTTT 1 Lay out argument 2 Then analyze it agreedisagree with it and then explain why Edwards Argument critique of cosmological argument Aquinas argument does not prove God s existencehe s successful in proving that there is a first mover and a first cause but he doesn t prove that those first s are God Does not prove a single first cause or first mover most things that exist it took two beings to come into existence each series could be kicked off by a single mover If God was all powerful he wouldn t need someone else s help Does not prove that God still exists many effects are still around even when the cause is gone Does not prove that a first cause or mover is necessary 0 Unfair to defenders of the infinite series because the argument does not distinguish 1 A did not exist 2 A is not uncaused 39 Defenders of the infinite series agree with 2 but not 1 they don t take away any members away They only add on They take away firstness O O lt A supporter of Aquinas may still try to argue that while it is possible to have an infinite series the whole series still needs a cause lt Edwards the infinite series does not need an external cause Eskimo example lt Paley s Argument Teleological Argument starts with the purposefulness found in nature and argues to God as the purposeful designer Argument from analogy analogies are inductive draws upon the similarities of two or more things and it attempts to establish a further similarity lt Form A has attributes c d e and f 0 B has attributes c d and e 0 Therefore B probably has attribute f lt Ways to judge an argument from analogy 0 Are there any fallacies 0 Relevance of similarities 0 Number of similarities 0 Nature and degree of disanalogies Strength of conclusion lt Watch function complex multiple parts probably has a designer lt Universe function complex multiple parts 0 Therefore the universe probably also has a designer God 0 The function of the universe points to an intelligent designer lt 1 There is a watch maker even though we have never met one The watch cant make itself lt 2 The watch doesn t always work perfectly but that doesn t mean it doesn t have a designer 3 There might be parts that don t look like they have a function and can be removed from the watch and it still work but it still has a function and a designer lt 4 Only one possible combination the coming together of the parts could have been random but it makes more sense to have a maker since its so complex lt 5 Don t need to remain skeptical because enough evidence for analogy that universe probably had a designer lt Too much missing to prove that God is all powerful People look to God for answers so if God is gone then people cant fill the void they are searching for an answer What are the arguments for God s existence and what do you think the strengths and weaknesses are EXAM QUESTION Hume counter argument dialogue form Cleanthes theologian who thinks that belief in God can be rationally justified like Paley Demea represents the orthodox believer who wants to maintain the adorable mysteriousness of God Philo skeptic like Hume lt 1 Demea objects to anthropomorphizing God God is so much greater than humans so we cant compare him to humans lt 2 Demea object to it being an analogical argument 3 Philo Fallacy of Composition if the parts have purpose does the whole Can we infer an external purposefulness on the model of human purposefulness 4 Philo also says that we know that the watch probably has a creator because we can compare it to other manmade artifacts The problem is that there is only one universe that we are aware of so we have nothing to compare with it We don t know whether it resembles a created universe or not 5 Philo criticizes the analogy Like effects should prove like causes page 9394 Cant infer infinity in God s attributes If we assume that the world is not perfect then we cannot assume the perfection of God 0 Even if we do assume the world is perfect we still cannot infer that God is perfect We cannot infer that there is a single creator We cannot infer that God is uncaused We cannot infer that God is incorporeal meaning that God has no body Same kind of argument Edwards have against Aquinas Anselm 0 Ontological begins with the idea of God and argues to Gods existence 0 A Priori based on premises that can be known to be true independent of existence 0 God is that than which no greater can be conceived o 1 God is conceivable o 2 God exists in the understanding 0 3 God cannot exist in the understanding alone 39 Assume God exists only in the understanding 39 God can be conceived to exist in reality 39 Greater to exist in reality than just the understanding D Greater does not mean better greater means more potent and more substantial and has more substance to it 39 If God exists in the understanding alone then God is one than which a greater can be conceived contradiction 39 It is impossible for God to exist in the understanding alone 0 Conclusion God must exist both in the understanding and in reality 0 By having idea of God and then analyzing it we can prove that God exists 0 Necessary always exists 0 Contingent might not exists Argument for the Mode of Gods existence 0 God cannot exist contingently 0 Assume God exists contingently o God could still be considered to exist necessarily which is greater 0 Therefore if God exists contingently then God is one than which a greater can be conceived contradiction o God cannot exist contingently 0 Conclusion God must necessarily exist God must absolutely have to exist everywhere at all times lt Gaunilo s critique 0 Greatest conceivable island the perfect island is not possible because you can always add more stuff so that makes it not perfect so it is inconceivable Anselm s Response 0 1 I cannot conceive of the nonexistence of God 0 IfI try to conceive the nonexistence of God then I have God in the understanding That proves that God exists 0 IfI don t have God in the understanding then if is not God I am conceiving the nonexistence of 0 2 I can conceive of the nonexistence of the island because its impossible 0 Conclusion god must exists necessarily but the island isn t even possible Ontological Argument 0 Premise 1 God is conceivable Which are the most successful 0 Paley proves a designer not necessarily a God 0 Anselm because the others have many possible creators Test 2 19082009 100800 Epistemology study of knowledge 0 Know how knowing how to do something through instinct 0 Knowledge of acquaintance 0 Propositional knowledge Traditional definition of Knowledge justified true belief What is the structure of knowledge How do we come to know things What is the source of knowledge What is the extent of knowledge TTTTTTTT Rationalism there are innate ideas that the mind can come to know a p o 0 Descartes lt Empiricism there are no innate ideas All knowledge comes from experience 0 Locke Berkeley Hume lt Skepticism challenges the possibility of knowledge 0 Extreme skepticism holds that knowledge is in fact impossible Kant lt Descartes 0 Foundationalism clear and indubitable T 0 Rationalist 0 Method of doubt 0 Previous foundations o Senses mad men and dreamers 0 Logical Truths evil deceiver o Skeptical Tool Argument for God s existence 0 Principle of Sufficient Reason 0 Ideas too 0 Ideas must be traced to entities 0 I have the idea of a perfect being 3 ways to get ideas 0 sensation 0 imagination 0 innate We must have the idea of God first Locke 0 Propositional Knowledge 0 Representationalism Rasa Empiricist 1 Introduction 0 Purpose method 2 Rejection of innate ideas 0 innate ideas ideas we come into the world with 0 argument commonly given universal assent 0 Doesn t prove anything 0 Children and idiots 3 Empiricism all knowledge comes from sense experience Tabula blank slate 0 Source of our ideas sensation and reflection 0 We come to know by degrees 4 Our ideas and the power of objects to produce ideas Ideas whatever the minds perceives in itself or is the immediate object of perception Quality the power to produce an idea in our mind 0 Primary inseparable from the object motionrest science tells us how motion is determined by the perceiver solidity extensionbig or small standing in front of building its big flying over its small number cross eyes and there are 2 figurehow you are looking at something mindindependent Secondary not in objects just qualities that produce ideas in us hotcold smell texture color taste sound Relativity of Perception things perceive are perceived differently by different people Corpuscular Theory the physical process of how we translate images sounds to ideas to our brains 5 Knowledge involves relating ideas immediate knowledge intuitive certain and immediate demonstrative not immediate certain sensitive knowledge of things external to us lt 6 Our knowledge of external thingsobjects produce ideas 0 Those who lack a sense organ lack any corresponding idea 0 I cant help having ideas lt Berkeley 0 Idealistimmaterialist 0 Philonous lover of mind Berkeley 0 Argument no such thing as material substance 39 Sensible thing immediately perceived by the senses o 1 Material objects are nothing more than sensible things 0 2 If you take away sensible qualities then nothing remains o 3 Sensible qualities are divided into primary and secondary qualities 4 There are no secondary qualities in objects because they are mind dependent 5 There are no primary qualities in objects because they are mind dependent begins to disagree with Locke Who gives better argument for primary qualities 6 Therefore there are no sensible qualities in objects All qualities are mind dependent Therefore material objects cannot exist independently of the mind 0 Hylas matter one who believes in the independent existence of material objects like Locke O O O O To be is to be perceived There are minds and ideas but no independently existing physical world lt The reason that things don t go in and out of existence is because God is here to perceive it lt lt Argument for God s existence 0 Where do we get our sensible ideas from 0 Cannot come from the material world where Locke says they come from Cannot come from ideas because ideas are passive Must come from some mind Do not come from my own mind Must come from a mind that can support all sensible qualities 0 By the order and variety of ideas they must come from God 0 God is the archetype of ideas God is constantly giving us ideas 0 We don t perceive God so we don t know him We have notions OOOO lt Berkeley flat out thinks that the external does not exist because its impossible The primary qualities cannot exist outside of the perceivers lt lt Hume 0 Skeptical empiricist we will never know if the external world exists and we don t really know where our ideas come from o 1 Difference between are current impression memory and anticipation The most lively thought is still in inferior to the dullest sensation o 2 Division of perceptions of the mind 39 Thoughts and Ideas weaker variety things that we remember or anticipate 39 Impressions vivid strong impressions page 211 o 3 Our thoughts are actually limited by our impressions this point proves he s an empiricist 39 Proof D 1 Provide a counterexample D 2 Those who lack a sense organ lack any corresponding idea 0 4 Method in abstract reasoning find the impression that ideas are based on o 5 Division of human reason 39 relations of ideas contrary is not logically possible D math logic AA 39 matters of fact contrary is logically possible D The sun will not rise tomorrow 0 6 All reasoning concerning matters of fact is founded on the relation of cause and effect 0 7 How can we justify the relation of cause and effect 39 Not apriori ourjustification must come from experience 0 8 What do we learn about cause and effect from experience 39 Cause and effect conjunction we do not experience necessary connection or the secret power that the cause has to produce the effect 0 Consequences 39 Our knowledge is limited to relations of ideas and current impressions 39 We do not know that the relation of cause and effect will hold in the future What would Hume say about our own minds 0 Mind is a non material thing Hume says that we don t have any knowledge of our own minds All we ever observe are the passing impressions Relating Hume to Berkeley and relating Berkeley to Locke and how all the empiricists relate to Descartes Test 2 Review Study Questions 0 Descartes O O O O O O O O 0 Locke O O O 0 What is foundationalism What criteria must Descartes foundation meet What method does he adopt to discover these beliefs and why Why does Descartes reject his previous foundations What is his first new foundational belief How does it meet the criteria What is his argument for God s existence Be specific How does Descartes justify his super structure beliefs Why is Descartes considered a rationalist Define rationalist and then explain why Why does Locke reject innate ideas How does he argue for the existence for the physical world How does he argue for the physical world for the source of our ideas Assess his arguments 0 Berkeley 0 0 What is idealism How does he argue in favor of idealism Hume O O O 0 What is the source of sensible ideas god and how does he support that claim Compare his argument with Locke s argument Who has the stronger argument What arguments does Hume offer against innate ideas What are relations of ideas and matters of fact and how are they different How does Hume show that matters of fact are not completely justified What are the consequences of that view that matters of fact are not completely justified Why is he considered a skeptical empiricist Assess his arguments Test 3 19082009 100800 Thomas Hobbes 0 Point of the Leviathan is to justify an absolute no limit on the ruler sovereign ruler one ruler hereditary monarchy who has no limits 0 Egoists we are all selfinterested selfpreservation 0 Support 39 1 Look at how people behave D Example every Christmas someone is trampled because of a toy and whoever gets the last one gloats about it 39 2 Look at how kingsnations behave D Example countries fight over oil Gulf War fighting over oil fields in Kuwait 0 State of Nature no government no laws 0 Logical deduction from the way people actually are 0 Men are all equal in our ability to kill one another 39 This gives us equality of hope I have equal hope of killing someone else before they can kill me 39 This equality of hope makes us all enemies D Three causes of quarrel 0 Competition 0 Fear 0 Glory lt No one esteems you as much as you esteem yourself 0 State of Nature state of war of every man against every other man 0 Life of man is solitary poor nasty brutish and short 0 Selfpreservation is the ruling principle and this is what leads us into civil society 0 Right of Nature the freedom each man has to use his own power as he sees fit for the preservation of his own life 0 Law of Nature a general rule found out by reason by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his own life or takes away the means of preserving his life 0 First Law everyone ought to seek peace as far as he has hopes of obtaining it and when he cannot obtain it use all advantages of war 0 Second Law a man must be willing when others are too to lay down his right to all things and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself Never give up right to selfdefense 0 So we have the right to give us some rights in order to have peace 39 Renouncing give up right to a pen etc 39 Transferring give right to the pen to Raven etc D Contracts are mutual transferring of rights D Covenants are contracts that involve a promise of faith D Covenants in the state of nature are void unless there is a common power to compel performance 0 The establishment of a civil society requires an outside power to force compliance 0 Absolute Sovereign the sovereign hasn t agreed to anything We give him our rights besides the right of selfdefense His power has no limits He is outside the covenant 0 Don t revolt against sovereign because the sovereign wont be as bad as the state of nature people who try to revolt he calls a cancer 0 Sovereign is an egoist so whatever is in his interest is in our interest too 0 Reasons to support a hereditary monarchy